Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Oh, do you skin a lot of animals and tan hides? Or let me guess, that time you came up north, you saw a pair of moose hide moccasins and now your an expert.

Quote:

How cool is cool? Got a temperature in mind? At what temperature/time does the hair start to slip if you don't salt it?

Root cellar or ice house cool should do. I told you things start to turn after about two weeks. I forgot to mention that you have to rinse the blood out. The blood is what makes it spoil fast.

Quote:

One week to make a full squatch suit out of "shaggy haired" untanned/unsalted horse hide?

Why not? Especially if BG helped

Quote:

Using what type of tools?

A cutting tool and a tiny pointed metal stick with a hole in one end and a real skinny string stuck through the hole.

Quote:

]Where? Laying in a freezer?

I'm guessing, on a table

Quote:

Are you serious?

Sometimes

Quote:

-snipped- once the animal is dead the elasticity of the hide fades extremely fast so there is no advantage to not tanning the hide.
Remember - flexibility is not elasticity - which you failed to address from my original post.

Your a little bit right but, I wouldn't say fades extremely fast, I would say it is diminished. I think there is evidence of this, ie. The hip wader X.

Oh, do you skin a lot of animals and tan hides? Or let me guess, that time you came up north, you saw a pair of moose hide moccasins and now your an expert.

Root cellar or ice house cool should do. I told you things start to turn after about two weeks. I forgot to mention that you have to rinse the blood out. The blood is what makes it spoil fast.

Why not? Especially if BG helped

A cutting tool and a tiny pointed metal stick with a hole in one end and a real skinny string stuck through the hole.

I'm guessing, on a table

Sometimes

Your a little bit right but, I wouldn't say fades extremely fast, I would say it is diminished. I think there is evidence of this, ie. The hip wader X.

I doubt if Bob Gimlin did much more than I mentioned earlier, essentially donning a silly wig and pointing off into the distance nonchalantly.

I don't think 4-way stretch fabric would need to be used, if Janos Prohaska, among others, didn't need it, why would Roger?

The animal-hide is an interesting theory that's been offered before, but at any rate, we'll likely never know what was used, but I doubt it was anything too detailed. The detail is all in the eye of the viewer, or not, in most cases, coupled with the fact that Patty is only a tiny percentage of the whole picture.

My only issue with the animal skin theory is that I don't see what it explains.

When I watch the PGF, I see an unremarkable costume. It sags here and there, but in general it was deliberately shot to remain obscure to help cover up the imperfections. So hats off to the cinematographer, but I certainly don't see any muscle movement or other details that need an exotic material to explain.

__________________>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

To add to what John Nowak said above, the low res images of the PGF are what allows it to be discussed at all. I think that the reason so few videos show up now is that digital video is too precise to allow the con to continue. The reason Nawackys don't provide any photos is for this same reason. Someone would demand to see the raw info that is part of digital imaging and the jig would be up. Roger shook the camera for a reason and many others have followed the script.

To add to what John Nowak said above, the low res images of the PGF are what allows it to be discussed at all. I think that the reason so few videos show up now is that digital video is too precise to allow the con to continue. The reason Nawackys don't provide any photos is for this same reason. Someone would demand to see the raw info that is part of digital imaging and the jig would be up. Roger shook the camera for a reason and many others have followed the script.

Exactly. Roger likely never even considered the prospect of people claiming to see all of these extra details, he likely thought the image of a Bigfoot would be enough. I don't doubt that he went for a realistic-look, but not to the extent of including bulging calf-muscles and whatnot. The original film was nothing like what we now see. Patty would've been a mere blip on the screen.

I think Roger certainly added some features, but he didn't think they'd be seen in such detail as they are now, hence the oddly positioned breasts and the apparent block-foot.

Oh, do you skin a lot of animals and tan hides? Or let me guess, that time you came up north, you saw a pair of moose hide moccasins and now your an expert.

Root cellar or ice house cool should do. I told you things start to turn after about two weeks. I forgot to mention that you have to rinse the blood out. The blood is what makes it spoil fast.

<SNIP>

Stop making this personal!

You don't have to be "up north" to know about hunting, trapping, and preserving/working with hides. Only a fool would think that.

There again - only a fool would want to make a large fur suit complete with a head using untanned hides under adverse conditions like a cooler or a root cellar.
Cold fingers and making intricate seams without gaps in thick long haired hide while ensuring the nap is running in the same direction do not go well together.

What is the point of working with untanned hides? You gain absolutely nothing and increase the chance of losing all your work when the hair starts to slip (fall out). You haven't even mentioned at least salting the hides!

Ever check out the daytime temperatures in Yakima and California?
Patterson wasn't such a fool that he would waste time and money working with untanned hides knowing that he could lose all his work in literally a day!

Contrary to your assertion - it's not the blood that make hides spoil fast or causes the hair to slip even without noticeable spoilage - it's the moisture.
Bacteria needs moisture and even after thoroughly fleshing the hide - moisture is still in the skin.
That is why people want to immediately salt the hide because the salt removes the moisture. Without moisture - bacteria cannot grow and destroy the hair follicles that hold the hair in place. Once the follicles are destroyed - the hair slips and that could take less than a day in warm conditions.

This is very basic knowledge.
I am not going to waste any more of my time arguing with someone who doesn't know these things - or thinks that making large intricate items out of untanned heavily haired hides is something anyone with an ounce of sense is going to do.

__________________"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

You don't have to be "up north" to know about hunting, trapping, and preserving/working with hides. Only a fool would think that.

That doesn't answer my question, do you have any experience skinning animals and tanning hides?

Quote:

There again - only a fool would want to make a large fur suit complete with a head using untanned hides under adverse conditions like a cooler or a root cellar.
Cold fingers and making intricate seams without gaps in thick long haired hide while ensuring the nap is running in the same direction do not go well together.

Do you think? How about store the hide in a cool place and work on the pieces somewhere else

Quote:

What is the point of working with untanned hides? You gain absolutely nothing and increase the chance of losing all your work when the hair starts to slip (fall out). You haven't even mentioned at least salting the hides!

I would do it because I think it would give a more natural look to my suit. The untanned hide would conform to the wearer's body and move more naturally. I thought maybe Roger might have thought the same thing. Plus being short on cash, it seemed like the most likely material he would have used.

Quote:

Ever check out the daytime temperatures in Yakima and California?

Just did it's 7 degrees Celsius, I guess it's not all that hot in the fall.

Quote:

Patterson wasn't such a fool that he would waste time and money working with untanned hides knowing that he could lose all his work in literally a day!

I did not know you and Roger were friends, tell me more about what he was like, because I'm just speculating. Where are you getting this "literally a day" stuff from, all the experience you have in this area?

Quote:

Contrary to your assertion - it's not the blood that make hides spoil fast or causes the hair to slip even without noticeable spoilage - it's the moisture.
Bacteria needs moisture and even after thoroughly fleshing the hide - moisture is still in the skin.
That is why people want to immediately salt the hide because the salt removes the moisture. Without moisture - bacteria cannot grow and destroy the hair follicles that hold the hair in place. Once the follicles are destroyed - the hair slips and that could take less than a day in warm conditions.

Know what is full of moisture? Blood, so getting rid of that slows down bacteria, know what else slows down bacteria growth? Cold, this is very basic knowledge. I'm pretty sure I've got a lot more experience with hides than you, real world trumps google.

Quote:

This is very basic knowledge.
I am not going to waste any more of my tim arguing with someone who doesn't know these things -

Yes end it now before anyone finds out you are faking it just trying to spite me.

Quote:

or thinks that making large intricate items out of untanned heavily haired hides is something anyone with an ounce of sense is going to do.

He wasn't making a piano, it was a shirt and a pair of pants, not that hard.

If Roger used horsehide - and I don't know where that rumor started - then that was an awfully shaggy horse for late summer.

Also, where did he get it? If from a slaughterhouse or glue factory that should've been fairly easy to track down. Did he time theentire hoax to concede with lucking into the ability to put down a horse? To me, the horsehide hypothesis rests on nothing more than Bob H remarking that the suit stank.

Morris claims he sold Roger a gorilla suit. More plausible than a custom-fitted horsehide would be a modified gorilla suit.

Howard Heironimus told Bob Heironimus that Roger told him that he made the costume from the hide of a dead red horse (brown color). Bob never actually claimed that the suit was horsehide and only said that the headpiece stunk. The story may not be true and also Roger may have lied about making it himself and the material used.

I don't think stretch material was used. In my opinion it is made from synthetic Dynel fur or a Dynel blend (not uncommon back then). It is very glossy black. If it is made from natural fur then I would guess black bear.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Me thinks Gimlin knows it all. Despite all the bad-mouthing and name calling Roger Patterson has endured, virtually all of it coming after his death, I'd say at this point in time he's hardly the bad guy compared to Bob Gimlin's. Patterson never really had much time after the initial profiting from his film to "come clean" (due to his death). And there's no way to know if he ever would have, but we do know that Gimlin never has. That is to say, Patterson isn't the one who's perpetuated the "validity" of the PGF the last 43 (of 47) years, only Bob Gimlin has.

Claims and speculation that Gimlin was just a stooge of Patterson's and knew almost nothing of the bigger picture seems at best dubious. Not because it's impossible, but what kind of "hustler" like Patterson would go all the way to CA on a 'mission from gawd' to film Bigfoot yet not fully inform the one (visible) guy he takes with him and whose help he'll undoubtedly need? Makes no sense. Patterson was frying bigger fish, he was literally trying to fool the world, trying to fool Gimlin too would have been illogical and even counter productive. Yeah sure Gimlin might not know who made the suit or where it went, but he does know what really happened. And he knows BH (or his doppelganger) was the other conspirator.

And just like that snake Meldrum, Gimlin appears to be quite astute in regards to who to talk to, about what, and when. I don't recall any instances where he's been caught off-guard and said something completely different from the original story. Has he ever spoken publicly in situations where some actual candor was necessary?

What truly convinced me he's a real "playa" (despite his persona) was a video posted here sometime in the recent past that showed Gimlin at some Bigfoot Round-Up physically confronting a (bigger) "skeptical audience member" and trying to embarrass him for <gasp> having such impure thoughts. Yeah sure that's one possibility of what a guy who really saw Bigfoot might do, but it's absolutely positively what a guy with a 47 year old hoaxed "monster story" would do to continue the appearance he's never lied about anything regarding it. Maybe one of the resident "believers" can answer if this is what ALL Bigfooters believe, that Gimlin has never once lied about the PGF?

That doesn't answer my question, do you have any experience skinning animals and tanning hides?

Do you think? How about store the hide in a cool place and work on the pieces somewhere else

I would do it because I think it would give a more natural look to my suit. The untanned hide would conform to the wearer's body and move more naturally. I thought maybe Roger might have thought the same thing. Plus being short on cash, it seemed like the most likely material he would have used.

Just did it's 7 degrees Celsius, I guess it's not all that hot in the fall.

I did not know you and Roger were friends, tell me more about what he was like, because I'm just speculating. Where are you getting this "literally a day" stuff from, all the experience you have in this area?

Know what is full of moisture? Blood, so getting rid of that slows down bacteria, know what else slows down bacteria growth? Cold, this is very basic knowledge. I'm pretty sure I've got a lot more experience with hides than you, real world trumps google.

Yes end it now before anyone finds out you are faking it just trying to spite me.

He wasn't making a piano, it was a shirt and a pair of pants, not that hard.

Yes I have experience in skinning and tanning hides. I am not wrong in any of my assertions.

Your latest responses are not worth addressing but I will reply to one to show your lack of understanding even the basics. Your idea that by scraping and washing off the blood - the moisture is gone.
Actually - there is a lot of moisture left in the skin even after removing all the blood and excess fat with a thorough fleshing/scraping. That moisture alone is enough to cause bacterial growth and the hair to slip during a warm day or two in October in Yakima or Bluff Creek.
That is why salting a hide is almost universal as the first step in preserving its integrity.
People may remember that ABP showed us photos of his salted bear hides he had stored in his cabin.

I didn't need to google any of my knowledge - but anybody that is curious as to who is right can certainly google the topic themselves.

Your original premise seems to have found little in the way of support so our side discussion is really going nowhere.
This is my last post on the subject of tanning hide in this thread.

BTW - I would suggest toning down the anger and personal attacks as it does nothing to further your credibility.

__________________"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

All I wanted was to know was, if there was any evidence indicating that Roger used untanned hides to make his suit. It was you who made it *personal* by trying to portray me as a fool for even thinking such a thing was possible. I see no reason to further tone down how I feel when responding to your smug, condescending posts.

Howard Heironimus told Bob Heironimus that Roger told him that he made the costume from the hide of a dead red horse (brown color). Bob never actually claimed that the suit was horsehide and only said that the headpiece stunk. The story may not be true and also Roger may have lied about making it himself and the material used.

I don't think stretch material was used. In my opinion it is made from synthetic Dynel fur or a Dynel blend (not uncommon back then). It is very glossy black. If it is made from natural fur then I would guess black bear.

I consider you and Kitakaze to be two of the most knowledgeable people regarding the PGF and appreciate any input you have to offer. It seems there are too many variables and it all just boils down to hearsay and opinion. It sounds like my idea is probably a bust though, the supporting evidence seems kind of weak. I want to say 'Oh well' but it sure frustrates me that we will probably never know exactly how he did it.

I consider you and Kitakaze to be two of the most knowledgeable people regarding the PGF and appreciate any input you have to offer. It seems there are too many variables and it all just boils down to hearsay and opinion. It sounds like my idea is probably a bust though, the supporting evidence seems kind of weak. I want to say 'Oh well' but it sure frustrates me that we will probably never know exactly how he did it.

Yes, master saddle maker took a suit, added breasts, augmented the head, added arm extensions, drove 12 hours, camped out for days and took 100 feet of film. Yeah, I guess we'll never know.

Yes, master saddle maker took a suit, added breasts, augmented the head, added arm extensions, drove 12 hours, camped out for days and took 100 feet of film. Yeah, I guess we'll never know.

Well, he was making a movie. He had actors and costumes for it. He had cameras and film for it. He scouted out sites for it.

Luckily, his movie star accidentally strolled across his bow one fine afternoon, in no hurry, while he was filming scenery and background shots for his movie, so he didn't have to make a bigfoot suit or hire another actor.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

Me thinks Gimlin knows it all. Despite all the bad-mouthing and name calling Roger Patterson has endured, virtually all of it coming after his death, I'd say at this point in time he's hardly the bad guy compared to Bob Gimlin's. Patterson never really had much time after the initial profiting from his film to "come clean" (due to his death). And there's no way to know if he ever would have, but we do know that Gimlin never has. That is to say, Patterson isn't the one who's perpetuated the "validity" of the PGF the last 43 (of 47) years, only Bob Gimlin has.

Claims and speculation that Gimlin was just a stooge of Patterson's and knew almost nothing of the bigger picture seems at best dubious. Not because it's impossible, but what kind of "hustler" like Patterson would go all the way to CA on a 'mission from gawd' to film Bigfoot yet not fully inform the one (visible) guy he takes with him and whose help he'll undoubtedly need? Makes no sense. Patterson was frying bigger fish, he was literally trying to fool the world, trying to fool Gimlin too would have been illogical and even counter productive. Yeah sure Gimlin might not know who made the suit or where it went, but he does know what really happened. And he knows BH (or his doppelganger) was the other conspirator.

And just like that snake Meldrum, Gimlin appears to be quite astute in regards to who to talk to, about what, and when. I don't recall any instances where he's been caught off-guard and said something completely different from the original story. Has he ever spoken publicly in situations where some actual candor was necessary?

What truly convinced me he's a real "playa" (despite his persona) was a video posted here sometime in the recent past that showed Gimlin at some Bigfoot Round-Up physically confronting a (bigger) "skeptical audience member" and trying to embarrass him for <gasp> having such impure thoughts. Yeah sure that's one possibility of what a guy who really saw Bigfoot might do, but it's absolutely positively what a guy with a 47 year old hoaxed "monster story" would do to continue the appearance he's never lied about anything regarding it. Maybe one of the resident "believers" can answer if this is what ALL Bigfooters believe, that Gimlin has never once lied about the PGF?

Gimlin may have had to sign documents saying he would never tell any of the trade secrets in order to maintain his share of the profits. There may be many reasons why he would. One of them is, why give up the gig until even the "target audience" loses interest. Some are dug in hard. mostly because they have told stories of their own in order to belong to this special club. (and i mean special as in special, not special. lol)

After Gimlin passes (or perhaps some time after Mrs Patterson does) some of the family will cash in on the relics or other items of interest that may have escaped the special club publications to date.

There is already proof that the thing was a hoax. footers just refuse to admit it. (there are actually many ways to prove their story was bogus)

Gimlin may have had to sign documents saying he would never tell any of the trade secrets in order to maintain his share of the profits. There may be many reasons why he would. One of them is, why give up the gig until even the "target audience" loses interest. Some are dug in hard. mostly because they have told stories of their own in order to belong to this special club. (and i mean special as in special, not special. lol)

After Gimlin passes (or perhaps some time after Mrs Patterson does) some of the family will cash in on the relics or other items of interest that may have escaped the special club publications to date.

There is already proof that the thing was a hoax. footers just refuse to admit it. (there are actually many ways to prove their story was bogus)

[url="http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/"]This is one of the ways

Maybe if the money they make pretending it's real dries up, some young Patterson will figure out there is money to made explaining how they did it.

Claims and speculation that Gimlin was just a stooge of Patterson's and knew almost nothing of the bigger picture seems at best dubious. Not because it's impossible, but what kind of "hustler" like Patterson would go all the way to CA on a 'mission from gawd' to film Bigfoot yet not fully inform the one (visible) guy he takes with him and whose help he'll undoubtedly need? Makes no sense. Patterson was frying bigger fish, he was literally trying to fool the world, trying to fool Gimlin too would have been illogical and even counter productive. Yeah sure Gimlin might not know who made the suit or where it went, but he does know what really happened. And he knows BH (or his doppelganger) was the other conspirator.

I wouldn't say that Gimlin was uninformed of the situation, but I don't think he was anywhere near to being the brains of the operation, and nor do I believe that he contributed much of anything other than his services for whatever amount of beer-money Roger had promised him.

I think Gimlin will likely have been included in whatever preparations went on before the event, but I don't think he'd have been overly interested in them, he just doesn't strike me as someone who gave much of a monkey's either way, other than when he was getting paid and how much moolah he was getting.

In the years since the PGF and Rogers' death, Gimlin has become quite the performer, and he's definitely enjoying the role that he adopted in Roger's absence. Every time he tells his story he adds a little more drama to it.

Most of all, he knows he has a fan-club, and he knows that this fan-club would champion his every word, regardless.

Imo, though, I don't really think Gimlin had much to do with the PGF other than being there, pointing at things, jumping off logs and holding Rogers hand whenever he needed to tinkle in the woods.

He bounced the check for the rental of the camera for cripes sake. He didn't have money to waste on endless reels of film.

He was making a movie, NL, stop acting like you're not aware of this very blatant fact. He clearly had a bit of money with which to do everything he'd need to do in order to make the movie that he quite clearly intended to make. Are you forgetting that Roger loaned money from people for this exact reason?

RP: "Well, Bob-ol' buddy, here we are in Bluff Creek, where we've come to film a sasquatch documentary where Ray Wallace has been hoaxing tracks for years."
BG: "Yup."

RP: "I'm sorry I wasted all but these last few feet of film on scenery and stuff. I think I'll use it all up on some more scenery and stuff."
BG: "Yup."

RP: "I'm sorry I didn't bother to figure out how to get a guy in a furry suit to play the sasquatch in our movie. I agree with ya that it's pretty lame not to have a sasquatch in our sasquatch mov - - - Holy Frijoles! There's one now! It looks uncannily similar to the one I drew in my bigfoot book a years ago, too!"
BG: "Yup."

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.